{"number":15,"title":"Of Christ alone without Sin","part":null,"questions":[],"paragraphs":["15.1"],"clauses":[],"items":[],"text":"> Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things (sin only except) from which he was clearly void both in his flesh and in spirit. He came to be a Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the World: and sin, as St. *John* saith, was not in him. But all we the rest (although baptized and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us.\n\nThis Article relates to the former, and is put here as another Foundation against all Works of Supererogation: for that Doctrine, with the Consequences of it, having given the first Occasion to the Reformation, it was thought necessary to overthrow it entirely: and because the Perfection of the Saints must be supposed, before their Supererogation can be thought on, that was therefore here opposed.\n\nThat Christ was *holy, without spot and blemish, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners*;[^1] that there was *no guile in his mouth; that he never did amiss, but went about always doing good,* and was as a *lamb without spot,* is so oft affirmed in the New Testament,[^2] that it can admit of no Debate. This was not only true in his Rational Powers, the superior part called the *Spirit,* in opposition to the lower part, but also in those Appetites and Affections that arise from our Bodies, and from the Union of our Souls to them, called the *Flesh.* For tho’ in these Christ having the Human Nature truly in him, had the Appetites of Hunger in him, yet the Devil could not tempt him by that to distrust God, or to desire a miraculous supply sooner than was fitting: He overcame even that necessary Appetite whensoever there was an occasion given him *to do the will of his heavenly Father:*[^3] He had also in him the aversions to pain and suffering, and the horror at a violent and ignominious Death, which was planted in our Natures: and in this it was natural to him to wish and to pray that the Cup might pass from him. But in this his Purity appeared the most eminently, That tho’ he felt the weight of his Nature to a vast degree, he did notwithstanding that, limit and conquer it so entirely, that he resigned himself absolutely to his Father’s Will: *Not my will, but thy will be done.*\n\nBesides all that has been already said upon the former Articles, to prove that some taint and degree of the Original Corruption remains in all Men; the peculiar Character of Christ’s Holiness so oft repeated, looks plainly to be a distinction proper to him and to him only. We are called upon to follow him, to learn of him, and to imitate him without restriction; whereas we are required to *follow the Apostles, only as they were the followers of Christ:*[^4] And though we are commanded *to be holy as he was holy in all manner of conversation*; that does no more prove that any man can arrive at that pitch, than our being commanded *to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect,* will prove that we may become perfect as God is: The Importance of these words being only this, That we ought in all things to make God and Christ our patterns; and that we ought to endeavour to imitate and resemble them all we can.\n\nThere seems to be a particular design in the Contexture and Writing of the Scriptures, to represent to us some of the Failings of the best Men: For though *Zacharias* and *Elizabeth* are said to have been *blameless,* that must only be meant of the Exterior and Visible part of their Conversation, that it was free from blame,[^5] and of their being accepted of God; but that is not to be carried to import a sinless Purity before God: For we find the same *Zachary* guilty of misbelieving the Message of the Angel to him, to such a degree,[^6] that he was punished for it with a Dumbness of above Nine Months continuance. Perhaps the Virgin’s Question to the Angel had nothing blame-worthy in it;[^7] but our Saviour’s Answers to her, both when she came to him in the Temple, when he was Twelve Years old, and more particularly when she moved him at the Marriage in *Cana,* to furnish them with Wine, look like a Reprimand. The Contentions among the Apostles about the Preheminence, and in particular the Ambition of *James* and *John,* cannot be excused. St. *Peter*’s Dissimulation at *Antioch* in the Judaizing Controversy,[^8] and the sharp Contention that happened between *Paul* and *Barnabas* are recorded in Scripture, and they are both Characters of the Sincerity of those who Penned them, and likewise Marks of the Frailties of Human Nature, even in its greatest Elevation, and with its highest Advantages. So that all the high Characters that are given of the best Men, are to be understood either comparatively to others whom they exceeded, or with relation to their outward Actions, and the visible parts of their Life: Or they are to be meant of their Zeal and Sincerity, which is valued and accepted of God; and, as it was to *Abraham,* is imputed to them for Righteousness.\n\nYet this is not to be abused by any to be an encouragement to live in Sin; for we may carry this Purity and Perfection certainly very far, by the Grace of God. In every Sin that we commit, we do plainly perceive, that we do it with so much freedom, that we might not have done it; here is still just Matter for Humiliation and Repentance. By this Doctrine our Church intends only to repress the Pride of vain-glorious and hypocritical Men, and to strike at the Root of that filthy Merchandise that has been brought into the House of God, under the pretence of the Perfection, and even the over-doing or supererogating of the Saints.\n\n[^1]: Heb. 7.26.\n[^2]: 1 Pet. 1.19.\n[^3]: Joh. 4.34.\n[^4]: 1 Cor. 11.1 1 Pet. 1.15. Mat. 5.48.\n[^5]: Luk. 1.6.\n[^6]: Ver. 20.\n[^7]: Luk. 2.49. Joh. 2.4.\n[^8]: Matth. 20.20, 24. Gal. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Act. 15.39."}