to Christ in Union to the Spirit to Impunity and to Glory And 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which we are made Holy and fulfil the Conditions of the Law of Grace We are the Subjects of these and he is the Minister and the meritorious Cause of our Life is well called Our Righteousness and by many the material Cause as our own perfect Obedience would have been because it is the Matter of that Merit 4. And also Christ's Intercession with the Father still procureth all this as the Fruit of his Merits 5. And we are Related as his Members though not parts of his Person as such to him that thus merited for us 6. And we have the Spirit from him as our Head 7. And he is our Advocate and will justifie us as our Judg. 8. And all this is God's Righteousness designed for us and thus far given us by him 9. And the perfect Justice and Holiness of God is thus glorified in us through Christ And are not all these set together enough to prove that we justly own all asserted by these Texts But if you think that you have a better sense of them you must better prove it than by a bare naming of the words Object 3. If Christ's Righteousness be Ours then we are Righteous by it as Ours and so God reputeth it but as it is But it is Ours 1. By our Vnion with him 2. And by his Gift and so consequently by God's Imputation Answ 1. I have told you before that it is confessed to be Ours but that this syllable OVRS hath many senses and I have told you in what sense and how far it is OVRS and in that sense we are justified by it and it is truly imputed to us or reputed or reckoned as OVRS But not in their sense that claim a strict Propriety in the same numerical Habits Acts Sufferings Merits Satisfaction which was in Christ or done by him as if they did become Subjects of the same Accidents or as if they did it by an instrumental second Cause But it is OVRS as being done by a Mediator instead of what we should have done and as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness and Benefits which are freely given us for the sake hereof 2. He that is made Righteousness to us is also made Wisdom Sanctification and Redemption to us but that sub genere Causae Efficientis non autem Causae Constitutivae We are the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ Plainly the Question is Whether Christ or his Righteousness Holiness Merits and Satisfaction be Our Righteousness Constitutively or only Efficiently The Matter and Form of Christ's Personal Righteousness is OVRS as an Efficient Cause but it is neither the nearest Matter or the Form of that Righteousness which is OVRS as the Subjects of it that is It is not a Constitutive Cause nextly material or formal of it 3. If our Union with Christ were Personal making us the same Person then doubtless the Accidents of his Person would be the Accidents of ours and so not only Christ's Righteousness but every Christians would be each of Ours But that is not so Nor is it so given us by him Object 4. You do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all which consisteth in perfect Obedience and Holiness but only a Right to Impunity and Life with an imperfect Inherent Righteousness in our selves The Papists are forced to confess that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law and not only the Retributive part But they say It is in our selves and we say it is Christ's imputed to us Answ 1. The Papists e. g. Learned Vasqueâ— in Rom. 5. talk so ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants or the Law of Innocency and of Grace as if they never understood it And hence they 1. seem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency or of Nature now commanding our perfect Obedience but only of the Law of Grace 2. Therefore they use to call those Duties but Perfections and the Commands that require them but Counsels where they are not made Conditions of Life and sins not bringing Damnation some call Venial a name not unfit and some expound that as properly no sin but analogically 3. And hence they take little notice when they treat of Justification of the Remitting of Punishment but by remitting Sin they usually mean the destroying the Habits As if they forgot all actual sin past or thought that it deserved no Punishment or needed no Pardon For a past Act in it self is now nothing and is capable of no Remission but Forgiveness 4. Or when they do talk of Guilâ— of Punishment they lay so much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction as if Christ's Satisfaction and Merits had procured no pardon or at least of no temporal part of Punishment 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protestants as if we denied all Personal Inherent Righteousness and trusted only to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as justifying wicked unconverted Men The Papists therefore say not that we are innocent or sinless really or imputatively no not when they dream of Perfection and Supererrogation unless when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Condition of the Law of Grace and not that of Innocency 2. But if any of them do as you say no wonder if they and you contend If one say We are Innocent or Sinless in reality and the other we are so by Imputation when we are so no way at all but sinners really and so reputed what Reconciliation is there to be expected till both lay by their Errour Object 5. How can God accept him as just who is really and reputedly a Sinner This dishonoureth his Holiness and Justice Answ Not so Cannot God pardon sin upon a valuable Merit and Satisfaction of a Mediator And though he judg us not perfect now and accept us not as such yet 1. now he judgeth us Holy 2. and the Members of a perfect Saviour 3. and will make us perfect and spotless and then so judg us having washed us from our sins in the Blood of the Lamb. Object 6. Thus you make the Reatus Culpae not pardoned at all but only the Reatus Poenae Answ 1. If by Reatus Culpae be meant the Relation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator and so to be Reus is to be Revera ipse qui peccavit then we must consider what you mean by Pardon For if you mean the nullifying of such a Guilt or Reality it is impossible because necessiate existentiae he that hath once sinned will be still the Person that sinned while he is a Person and the Relation of one that sinned will cleave to him It will eternally be a true Proposition Peter and Paul did sin But if by Pardon you mean the pardoning of all the penalty which for that sin is due damni
of a name of your own introduction for illustration If we were playing at a Game of Tropes I could tell you that the Healing of Mens Vnbelief is applicatory for the healing of their Guilt And the healing of Men's Ignorance Pride and Wrangling about words and frightning Men into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death is applicatory as to the healing of the Churches Wounds and Shame But I rather chuse to ask you Whether it was never heard that a particular subordinate personal Righteousness even Faith and Repentance was made by God the Condition of our Right to Pardon and Life by Christ's Righteousness Did you never teach your Sholars this in what words you thought best And yet even our Faith is a Fruit of Christ's Righteousness but nevertheless the Condition of other Fruits If you say that our Faith or Performance is not to be called Righteousness I refer you to my Answer to Mr. Cartwright And if the word Righteousness be not ofter ten to one used in Scripture for somewhat Personal than for Christ's Righteousness imputed then think that you have said something If you say But it justifieth not as a Righteousness but as an Instrument I Answer 1. I have said elsewhere so much of its Instrumentality that I am ashamed to repeat it 2. It justifieth not at all for that signifieth efficiency but only maketh us capable Recipients 3. We are justified by it as a medium and that is a Condition performed as aforesaid And when that Condition by a Law is made both a Duty and a Condition of Life the performance is by necessary resultancy a Righteousness But we are not justified by it as it is a Righteousness in genere nor as a mere moral Virtue or Obedience to the Law of Nature but as it is the performance of the Condition of the Law of Grace and so as it is this particular Righteousness and no other § 13. In Legal Justification saith he taken precisely either there is Remission of sin or not If not What Justification is that If yea then Evangelical Justification is not necessary to the application of it because the Application is supposed c. Answ 1. What I usually call Evangelical Righteousness he supposeth me to call Justification which yet is true and sound but such as is before explained 2. This is but the same again and needeth no new answer The performance of the Condition is strangely here supposed to follow the Right or Benefit of the Gift or Covenant If he would have the Reader think I said so he may as ingeniously tell that I deny all Justification If not what meaneth he CHAP. VII Dr. Tullies Quarrel about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness considered § 1. CAp. 8. pag. 79. he saith Because no Man out of Socinus School hath by his Dictates more sharply exagitated this Imputation of Righteousness than the Author of the Aphorisms and it is in all mens hands we think meet to bring into a clearer Light the things objected by him or more truly his Sophistical Cavils whence the fitter Prospect may be taken of almost the whole Controversie Answ That the Reader may see by what Weapons Theological Warriours wound the Churches Peace and profligate brotherly Love let him consider how many palpable Untruths are in these few Lines even in matter of Fact 1. Let him read Dr. Gell Mr. Thorndike and by his own confession the Papists a multitude of them and tell me true that No Man out of Socinus School hath c. To say nothing of many late Writings near us 2. If I have 1. never written one word against Imputation of Righteousness there or elsewhere 2. Yea have oft written for it 3. And if those very Pages be for it which he accuseth 4. Yea if there and elsewhere I write more for it than Olevian Vrsine Paraeus Scultetus Wendeline Piscator and all the rest of those great Divines who are for the Imputation only of the Passive Righteousness of Christ when I profess there and often to concur with Mr. Bradshaw Grotius and others that take in the Active also yea and the Habitual yea and Divine respectively as advancing the Merits of the Humane If all this be notoriously true what Epithets will you give to this Academical Doctors notorious Untruth 3. When that Book of Aphorisms was suspended or retracted between twenty and thirty years ago publickly because of many crude Passages and unapt Words and many Books since written by me purposely fully opening my mind of the same things all which he passeth wholly by save a late Epistle what credit is to be given to that Man's ingenuity who pretendeth that this being in all mens hands the answering it will so far clear all the Controversie § 2. Dr. T. He hence assaulteth the Sentence of the Reformed because it supposeth as he saith that we were in Christ at least legally before we believed or were born But what proof of the consequence doth he bring The rest are but his Reasons against the Consequences and his talk against me as pouring out Oracles c. Answ 1. Is this the mode of our present Academical Disputers To pass by the stating of the Controversie yea to silence the state of it as laid down by the Author whom he opposeth in that very place and more fully elsewhere often Reader the Author of the Aphorisms pag. 45. and forward distinguishing as Mr. Bradshaw doth of the several senses of Imputation and how Christ's Righteousness is made ours 1. Beginneth with their Opinion who hold That Christ did so obey in our stead as that in God's esteem and in point of Law we were in Christ dying and suffering and so in him we did both perfectly fulfil the Commands of the Law by Obedience and the Threatnings of it by bearing the Penalty and thus say they is Christ's Righteousness imputed to us viz. His Passive Righteousness for the pardon of our sins and deliverance from the Penalty His Active Righteousness for the making of us Righteous and giving us title to the Kingdom And some say the Habitual Righteousness of his Humane Nature instead of our own Habitual Righteousness Yea some add the Righteousness of the Divine Nature The second Opinion which he reciteth is this That God the Father accepteth the sufferings and merits of his Son as a valuable consideration on which he will wholly forgive and acquit the Offenders and receive them into his favour and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness so they will but receive his Son on the terms expressed in the Gospel And as distinct from theirs who would thus have the Passive Righteousness only imputed he professeth himself to hold with Bradshaw Grotius c. that the Active also is so imputed being Justitia Meriti as well as Personae and endeavoureth to prove it But not imputed in the first rigid sense as if God esteemed us to have been and done and suffered our selves in and by Christ and merited
Take your selves to be neither of Roman or any other Church as Vniversal which is less than the Vniversality of all Christians headed by Christ alone 9. Make this Love of all Christians the second part of your Religion and the Love of God of Christ of Holiness and Heaven the first and live thus in the serious practice of your Covenant even of Simple Christianity For it 's this that will be your Peace in Life and at Death 10. And if Men of various degrees of Learning or Speaking-skill and of various degrees of Holiness Humility and Love shall quarrel about Words and forms of Speech and shall hereticate and revile and damn each other while the Essentials are held fast and practised discern Right from Wrong as well as you can but take heed that none of them make Words a snare to draw you injuriously to think hatefully of your Brother or to divide the Churches or Servants of Christ And suspect such a Snare because of the great ambiguity of Words and imperfection of Mans Skill and Honesty in all Matters of debate And never dispute seriously without first agreeing of the Sense of every doubtful term with him that you Dispute with Dr. Tully's Allarm and other Mens militant Course perswaded me as a Preservative to commend this Counsel to you § XI Pag. 19. You next very justly commend Method ordering and expressing our Conceptions of which you say I seem to make little account in Comparison Answ 1. Had you said that I had been unhappy in my Endeavours your Authority might have gone for Proof with many But you could scarce have spoken a more incredible word of me than that I seem to make little account of Method I look for no sharper Censure from the Theological Tribe than that I Over-do in my Endeavours after Method You shall not tempt me here unseasonably to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accusation 2. But yet I will still say that it is not so necessary either to Salvation or to the Churches Peace that we all agree in Methods and Expressions as that we agree in the hearty reception of Christ and obedience to His Commands So much Method all must know as to know the Beginning and the End from the Effects and Means God from the Creature and as our true consent to the Baptismal Covenant doth require and I will thankfully use all the help which you give me to go further But I never yet saw that Scheme of Theologie or of any of its Heads which was any whit large and I have seen many which was so exact in Order as that it was dangerous in any thing to forsake it But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method with a Man that talketh as you do of Distinguishing and handleth the Doctrine of Justification no more Methodically than you do § XII But pag. 19. you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists about the Necessity of Good works which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification the other not but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness where it ought to keep Answ Wonderful Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification brought your own and as you say the Protestants difference to this Will none of your Readers see now who cometh nearer them you or I 1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method and Order and Expression What meaneth a distinction between First-Justification and Inherent Holiness Do you difference them Quoad ordinem as First and Second But here is no Second mentioned Is it in the nature of the things Justification and Inherent Holiness What signifieth the First then But Sir how many Readers do you expect who know not 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all but to that which they call the Second or Increase that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works See what I have fully cited out of them for this Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer 13. pag. 267. c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity and as our English Divines do constantly preach for and the Synod of Dort at large assert though they disown the name of Merit as many of the Papists do They ordinarily say with Austine Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum 2. But I hope the word First here overslipt your your Pen instead of Second But suppose it did so What 's the difference between the Papists first or second Justification and the Protestants Inherent Holiness None that ever I heard or read of Who knoweth not that the Papists take Justification for Inherent Holiness And is this the great difference between Papists and Protestants which I am so loudly accused for not acknowledging viz. The Papists place Good-Works before Justification that is Inherent Holiness and the Protestants more rightly place them before Inherent Holiness Are you serious or do you prevaricate The Papists and Protestants hold that there are some Duties and common Grace usually preparatory to Conversion or Sanctification which some Papists de nomine call Merit of Congruity and some will not The Papists and Protestants say that Faith is in order of nature at least before that Habitual Love which is called Holiness and before the Works thereof The Papists and Protestants say that Works of Love and Obedience follow our First Sanctification and make up but the Second part of it which consisteth in the Works of Holiness If you speak not of Works in the same sense in each part of your Assignation the Equivocation would be too gross viz. If you should mean Papists rank the necessity of preparatory Common Works or the Internal act of Faith or Love stretching it to the First Justification and Protestants rank other Works viz. The fruits of Faith and Love with Inherent Holiness All agree 1. That Common Works go before Sanctification 2. That Internal Love and other Grace do constitute Sanctification in the First part of it 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace are the effects of the First Part and the constitutive Causes of the Second Part of Sanctification as the word extendeth also to Holiness of Life And whilst Papists take Justâ—fication for Sanctification in all this there is De re no difference But your accurate Explications by such terms as Stretching Confirming Province c. are fitter for Tully than for Aristotle And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of that we must in this take heed of joyning with the Papists Do you mean Rank Good-Works with Inherent Holiness and not with the First Sanctification and you then do widely differ from the Papists Will not your Reader say 1. What doth Inherent Holiness differ from the First
the debt of a Community deeply indebted to the King and thence bound to perpetual slavery This payment gets liberty for this and that and the other member of the Community For it is imputed to them by the King as if they had paid it But this Imputation transferreth not the honour to them but brings them to partake of the Benefit So when the price paid by Christ for all is imputed to this or that man he is taken into the society of the Benefit Pag. 503. Distinguish between the Benefit and the Office of Christ The former is made ours but not the latter Pag. 542. The Remission of sin is nothing but the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Rom. 4. Where Imputation of Righteousness Remission of Iniquities and non-imputation of sin are all one Pag. 547. God imputeth it as far as he pleaseth Pag. 548. Princes oft impute the merits of Parents to unworthy Children Pag. 551. He denyeth that we have Infinite Righteousness in Christ because it is imputed to us in a finite manner even so far as was requisite to our absolution But I will a little more distinctly open and resolve the Case 1. We must distinguish of Righteousness as it relateth to the Preceptive part of the Law and as it relateth to the Retributive part The first Righteousness is Innocency contrary to Reatus Culpae The second is Jus ad impunitatem ad praemium seu dâ—num Right to Impunity and to the Reward 2. We must distinguish of Christs Righteousness which is either so called formally and properly which is the Relation of Christs person to his Law of Mediation imposed on him 1. As Innocent and a perfect obeyer 2. As one that deserved not punishment but deserved Reward Or it is so called materially and improperly which is Those same Habits Acts and Sufferings of Christ from which his Relation of Righteous did result 3. We must distinguish of Imputation which signifyeth here 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christs Acts the subjects of his Habits and Passion in a Physical sence 2. Or to repute the same formal Relation of Righteousness which was in Christs person to be in ours as the subject 3. Or to repute us to have been the very subjects of Christ's Habits and Passion and the Agents of his Acts in a Political or Moral sense and not a physical as a man payeth a debt by his Servant or Attorney or Delegate 4. And consequently to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said Habits Acts and Passions one to Christ as the natural Subject and Agent and another to us as the Moral Political or reputed Subject and Agent And so his Formal Righteousness not to be imputed to us in it self as ours but another to result from the same Matter 5. Or else that we are reputed both the Agents and Subjects of the Matter of his Righteousness morally and also of the Formal Righteousness of Christ himself 6. Or else by Imputation is meant here that Christ being truly reputed to have taken the Nature of sinful man and become a Head for all true Believers in that undertaken Nature and Office in the Person of a Mediator to have fulfilled all the Law imposed on him by perfect Holiness and Obedience and Offering himself on the Cross a Sacrifice for our sins voluntarily suffering in our stead as if he had been a sinner guilty of all our sins As soon as we believe we are pardoned justified adopted for the sake and merit of this Holiness Obedience and penal Satisfaction of Christ with as full demonstration of divine Justice at least and more full demonstration of his Wisdom and Mercy than if we had suffered our selves what our sins deserved that is been damned or had never sinned And so Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted or reputed righteous not in relation to the Precept that is innocent or sinless but in relation to the Retribution that is such as have Right to Impunity and Life because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness Obedience and Satisfaction merited our Pardon and Adoption and the Spirit or merited the New-Covenant by which as an Instrument Pardon Justification and Adoption are given to Believers and the Spirit to be given to sanctifie them And when we believe we are justly reputed such as have Right to all these purchased Gifts 4. And that it may be understood how far Christ did Obey or Suffer in our stead or person we must distinguish 1. Between his taking the Nature of sinful man and taking the Person of sinners 2. Between his taking the Person of a sinner and taking the Person of you and me and each particular sinner 3. Between his taking our sinful persons simply ad omnia and taking them only secundum quid in tantum ad hoc 4. Between his suffering in the Person of sinners and his obeying and sanctity in the Person of sinners or of us in particular 5. Between his Obeying and Suffering in our Person and our Obeying and Suffering in his Person Natural or Political And now I shall make use of these distinctions by the Propositions following Prop. 1. The phrase of Christ's Righteousness imputed to us is not in the Scripture 2. Therefore when it cometh to Disputation to them that deny it some Scripture-phrase should be put in stead of it because 1. The Scripture hath as good if not much better phrases to signifie all in this that is necessary 2. And it is supposed that the Disputants are agreed of all that is express in the Scripture 3. Yet so much is said in Scripture as may make this phrase of Imputing Christ's Righteousness to us justifiable in the sound sence here explained For the thing meant by it is true and the phrase intelligible 4. Christ's Righteousness is imputed to Believers in the sixth sence here before explained As the Meritorious cause of our Pardon Justification Righteousness Adoption Sanctification and Salvation c. as is opened 5. Christ did not suffer all in kind much less in duration which sinful man deserved to suffer As e. g. 1. He was not hated of God 2. Nor deprived or deserted of the sanctifying Spirit and so of its Graces and Gods Image Nor had 3. any of that permitted penalty by which sin it self is a misery and punishment to the sinner 4. He fell not under the Power of the Devil as a deceiver and ruler as the ungodly do 5. His Conscience did not accuse him of sin and torment him for it 6. He did not totally despair of ever being saved 7. The fire of Hell did not torment his body More such instances may be given for proof 6. Christ did not perform all the same obedience in kind which many men yea all men are or were bound to perform As 1. He did not dress and keep that Garden which Adam was commanded to dress and keep 2. He did not the conjugal offices which Adam and millions
more were bound to 3. Nor the Paternal Offices to Children 4. Nor all the offices of a King on Earth or Magistrate nor of a Servant c. Nor the duty of the Sick 5. He did not repent of sin nor turn from it to God nor mortifie or resist in himself any sinful lust nor receive a Saviour by Faith nor was circumcised or baptized for the Remission of his sins nor loved God or thanked him for redeeming or pardoning him nor obeyed God in the use of any Ordinance or Means for the subduing of sin and healing or saving of his Soul from any sin or deserved wrath of God with much more such 7. Christ did perform much which no man else was bound to do As to redeem Souls to work his Miracles and the rest of the works peculiar to the Mediator 8. That Law which bound us to Suffering or made it our due bound not Christ to it as being innocent But he was bound to it by the Fathers Law of Mediator and by his own voluntary sponsion 9. The Law obliging every sinner himself to suffer was not fulfilled by the Suffering of Christ our Sponsor But only the Lawgiver satisfied by attaining its Ends. For neither the letter nor sence of it said If thou sin thou or thy surety shall suffer 10. Christ satisfied Justice and obeyed in Humane Nature which also was Holy in him 11. He did not this as a Natural Root or Head to man as Adam was to convey Holiness or Righteousness by natural propagation as Adam should have done and did by sin For Christ had no Wife or natural Children But as a Head by Contract as a Husband to a Wife and a King to a Kingdom and a Head of Spiritual Influx 12. No as being Actually such a Head to the Redeemed when he Obeyed and Suffered but as a Head by Aptitude and Office Power and Virtue who was to become a Head actually to every one when they Believed and Consented Being before a Head for them and over those that did exist but not a Head to them in act 13. Therefore they were not Christs members Political much less Natural when he obeyed and died 14. A Natural Head being but a part of a person what it doth the Person doth But seeing a Contracted Head and all the members of his Body Contracted or Politick are every one a distinct Person it followeth not that each person did really or reputatively what the Head did Nay it is a good consequence that If he did it as Head they did it not numerically as Head or Members 15. Christ Suffered and Obeyed in the Person of the Mediator between God and man and as a subject to the Law of Mediation 16. Christ may be said to suffer in the person of a sinner as it meaneth his own person reputed and used as a sinner by his persecutors and as he was one who stood before God as an Undertaker to suffer for Man's sin 17. Christ suffered in the place and stead of sinners that they might be delivered though in the person of a Sponsor 18. When we are agreed that the Person of the Sponsor and of every particular sinner are divers and that Christ had not suffered if we had not sinned and that he as a Sponsor suffered in our stead and so bore the punishment which not he but we deserved If any will here instead of a Mediator or Sponsor call him our Representative and say that he suffered even in all our Persons reputatively not simpliciter but secunduùm quid in tantum only that is not representing our Persons simply and in all respects and to all ends but only so far as to be a sacrifice for our sins and suffer in our place and stead what he suffered we take this to be but lis de nomine a question about the name and words And we will not oppose any man that thinketh those words fittest as long as we agree in the matter signified And so many Protestant Divines say that Christ suffered in the person of every sinner at least Elect that is so far only and to such effects 19. Christ did not suffer strictly simply absolutely in the person of any one elect sinner much less in the millions of persons of them all in Law-sence or in Gods esteem God did not esteem Christ to be naturally or as an absolute Representer David Manasseh Paul and every such other sinner but only a Mediator that suffered in their stead 20. God did make Christ to be sin for us that is A Sacrifice for our sin and one that by Man was reputed and by God and Man was used as sinners are and deserve to be 21. Christ was not our Delegate in Obeying or Suffering We did not commission him or depute him to do what he did in our stead But he did it by God's Appointment and his own Will 22. Therefore he did it on God's terms and to what effects it pleased God and not on our terms nor to what effects we please 23. God did not suppose or repute Christ to have committed all or any of the sins which we all committed nor to have had all the wickedness in his nature which was in ours nor to have deserved what we deserved Nor did he in this proper sence impute our sins to Christ 24. The false notion of God's strict imputing all our sins to Christ and esteeming him the greatest sinner in the World being so great a Blasphemy both against the Father and the Son it is safest in such Controversies to hold to the plain and ordinary words of Scripture And it is not the Wisdom nor Impartiality of some men who greatly cry up the Scripture perfection and decry the addition of a Ceremony or Form in the Worship of God that yet think Religion is endangered if our Confession use not the phrases of God 's Imputing our sin to Christ and his Imputing Christ's Righteousness to us when neither of them is in the Scripture As if all God's Word were not big or perfect enough to make us a Creed or Confession in such phrases as it is fit for Christians to take up with Countenancing the Papists whose Faith is swelled to the many Volumes of the Councils and no man can know how much more is to be added and when we have all 25. God doth not repute or account us to have suffered in our Natural persons what Christ suffered for us nor Christ to have suffered in our Natural persons 26. Though Christ suffered in our stead and in a large sence to certain uses and in some respects as the Representer or in the Persons of sinners yet did he not so far represent their persons in his Habitual Holiness and Actual Obedience no not in the Obedience of his Suffering as he did in the suffering it self He obeyed not in the Person of a sinner much less of millions of sinners which were to say In the person of sinners he never sinned He suffered to